Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1373 (2026)

Short title - Postconviction DNA Act

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Postconviction DNA Act". Added by Laws 2013, c. 317, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2013.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case: Flowers v. State, 2016 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Flowers v. State, 2016 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “See 22 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1373. This is Petitioner's second post-conviction application since the effective date of this Act.”

Commonwealth v. Wade, 5 N.E.3d 816 (Mass. 2014). “See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1373 (West 2013).”

Watson v. State, 2015 OK CR 3 (Okla. Crim. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “¶2 On January 6, 2014, Petitioner filed in the District Court his first post-conviction motion requesting DNA testing, pursuant to the Postconviction DNA Act, 22 O.S.Supp.2013, §§ 1373 - 1373.7 (effective November 1, 2013).”

Flowers v. State, 2016 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “See 22 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1373. This is Petitioner's second post-conviction application since the effective date of this Act.”

State Ex Rel. Smith v. Neuwirth, 2014 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “The order requires the testing of DNA evidence and compels the post-conviction discovery of documents and physical evidence pursuant to Oklahoma's Postconviction DNA Act, 22 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1373 et seq . ¶2 Petitioner argues that Judge Neuwirth's order granting DNA testing…”

Nordstedt v. Louthan (N.D. Okla. 2023). · cites it 2× “On March 2, 2020, Nordstedt, through counsel, filed an application for postconviction relief, under Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1080 , a brief in support of that application, and a motion for postconviction DNA testing, under Okla.”

Hancock v. State, 2022 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “¶3 On July 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1373 ¶4 On October 25, 2021, the State filed the required statutory inventory of the evidence and a response in opposition to the motion for DNA testing.”

Huey v. Kunzweiler (10th Cir. 2021). “1 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1373 , et seq.”

Nero v. Crow (W.D. Okla. 2021). “Although Petitioner fulfills the custody requirement, his sole claim is that the District Court of Oklahoma County erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying him DNA testing, which hearing he contends was required by Oklahoma statute, specifically the…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.